# Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ



## departuresong (Feb 27, 2010)

> (CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
> 
> Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
> 
> ...


(full article)


----------



## Minish (Feb 27, 2010)

Good news for TCoD! ;D



> In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.


wtf.


----------



## spaekle (Feb 27, 2010)

Well boy howdy! Too bad I can't seem to break like 138 on those silly IQ tests.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Feb 27, 2010)

Spaekle Oddberry said:


> Well boy howdy! Too bad I can't seem to break like 138 on those silly IQ tests.


I don't want to seem rude but is this just a way to flaunt an IQ test result :/


----------



## Zuu (Feb 27, 2010)

like IQ tests are even really an accurate way of measuring intelligence.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 27, 2010)

Dezzuu said:


> like IQ tests are even really an accurate way of measuring intelligence.


You wouldn't believe how much value the students in my school seem to put on IQ. Even the dumb ones. And they put even more value in exams. I do well in both but I still have to hold up my hands and look at them to tell left from right.


----------



## Autumn (Feb 27, 2010)

in response to the topic title: You know what...? I am not surprised.


----------



## spaekle (Feb 27, 2010)

Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


> I don't want to seem rude but is this just a way to flaunt an IQ test result :/


Well okay, but I don't really take them seriously to begin with.


----------



## Jetx (Feb 28, 2010)

It is nice to have statistical evidence for things you have believed all along.

:D


----------



## Ether's Bane (Feb 28, 2010)

Didn't you ever think that there was a reason that, in US state IQ surveys, states like Massachusetts, California, and Oregon always do really well, while states like Louisiana, Georgia, and Alabama always do really badly? (I'm not bad-mouthing all people from those states - I'm just making a point.)


----------



## departuresong (Feb 28, 2010)

rock-ground said:


> Didn't you ever think that there was a reason that, in US state IQ surveys, states like Massachusetts, California, and Oregon always do really well, while states like Louisiana, Georgia, and Alabama always do really badly? (I'm not bad-mouthing all people from those states - I'm just making a point.)


I would imagine that would be the fault of the poor education standards in those states.


----------



## H-land (Feb 28, 2010)

The Full Article said:
			
		

> The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.


Now, when we say "concern for nonrelated people", would caring about my Uncle Mike count? He's the father of two of my cousins, but we aren't really related genetically. How vague...


----------



## Zuu (Feb 28, 2010)

How are you not related to your uncle? I'm confused.


----------



## #1 bro (Feb 28, 2010)

i think took an iq test like last week and i haven't gotten the results. but, being a liberal atheist virgin (although that last part is just because i'm awkward as fuck), this raises my hopes a little. :\


----------



## Tailsy (Feb 28, 2010)

Dezzuu said:


> How are you not related to your uncle? I'm confused.


A family friend who is simply called 'uncle'? It's not uncommon. I have a lot of unrelated aunts and uncles!

EDIT: Nice to know I can sex up whoever I want without it impacting my intelligence level.


----------



## allitersonance (Feb 28, 2010)

Alternatively, the uncle is married to a parent's sister. It was specified as "related genetically", so.


----------



## Dannichu (Feb 28, 2010)

I _despise_ evolutionary psychology. All this "this would have benefited our ancestors, so that's why we do X!" has no basis in actual science of any kind (I don't understand why psychology is more of a science than sociology; at least sociologists don't make up "scientific explanations" for things in the form of just-so stories).



> Every study reinforces the idea that women are objects of male desire, while men's wallets are the objects of female desire. Women are dumber than men, Africans dumber than Europeans, rape is a perfectly cromulent reproductive strategy, men are driven to cheat while women are driven toward monogany. Every prejudice and retrograde instinct is dressed up neatly as "science," so misogynists and racists can sleep well knowing that women and the darkies really are inferior because science says so.


It baffles me how many people here demand proof in a religious debate and find it ridiculous to believe in something for which no proof can be offered, and yet accept the evolutionary approach to psychology (I assume) because "it makes sense". Accepting that the world was flat once made sense!

The study's results are interesting, the conclusions drawn from it are absolute rubbish, imo.


----------



## Tailsy (Feb 28, 2010)

Kusarigamaitachi said:


> Alternatively, the uncle is married to a parent's sister. It was specified as "related genetically", so.


Well, he did say 'not really genetically related', which might mean 'unrelated' in a vaguer sense.


----------



## nyuu (Feb 28, 2010)

so Tesla was right about the celibacy thing?


----------



## H-land (Feb 28, 2010)

Kusarigamaitachi said:


> Alternatively, the uncle is married to a parent's sister. It was specified as "related genetically", so.


This. Uncle Mike is my dad's sister's husband.


----------



## Wargle (Feb 28, 2010)

Leafpool said:


> in response to the topic title: You know what...? I am not surprised.


I pretty much agree with this. 

Even though I bet people will argue this because it will make them look stupid. The #1 complaint will probably be 'The results are fixed'


----------



## Autumn (Feb 28, 2010)

Now I'm imagining an argument like "What atheists aren't smarter than us, they _haven't accepted God and Jesus_ how in heaven can they be smarter than us?!?!?!?!?!"


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Feb 28, 2010)

now you've turned this thread into atheism/agnosticism/whatever vs. abrahamic religions. :(


----------



## Minish (Feb 28, 2010)

Also, wouldn't one think that agnosticism would be linked to higher IQ as well...? Especially since many atheists actually are agnostics, whyyyy does everyone always forget the agnostics. ;_;


----------



## Butterfree (Feb 28, 2010)

Dannichu said:


> I _despise_ evolutionary psychology. All this "this would have benefited our ancestors, so that's why we do X!" has no basis in actual science of any kind (I don't understand why psychology is more of a science than sociology; at least sociologists don't make up "scientific explanations" for things in the form of just-so stories).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Eh, there are a lot of very dubious things that claim to be evolutionary psychology, but evolutionary psychology as a whole is not at all inherently unscientific. For as long as there exists such a thing as genetic dispositions towards certain behaviours or personality traits, people _will_ evolve to perform advantageous behaviours over disadvantageous ones and have advantageous traits over disadvantageous ones; that's just how genes work.

What's unscientific is saying "Because this would theoretically be advantageous in X way, that's how all or most people actually are", and what's morally repulsive is saying "Because this is evolutionarily advantageous, it's okay, we can't help acting that way and this is how things should be." It could be theoretically evolutionarily advantageous for a man to have a genetic predisposition towards rape, but that does _not_ make rape right or okay and it is _not_ an excuse for rapists, because in addition to genetic predispositions we have intelligent minds and free wills that by now pretty much nullify all but the most trivial of our genetic predispositions. Even if something was evolutionarily advantageous in our ancestors, that has practically no meaning for people today and shouldn't be treated as such. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with speculating about how certain basic behaviours or traits might have evolved in our ancestors; we just have to realize that it does not and should not have any real sociological meaning to us today.

This in particular I can't really buy as having much of anything to do with evolution, though, simply because liberalism and atheism and sexual exclusivity having the meaning they do in the social context of today is a pretty new phenomenon that I doubt could really have been evolved. Them being correlated with intelligence today does not mean there is such a thing as genetic predispositions towards liberalism and atheism; I'd wager this is much more about individuals with a higher IQ being likely to seek a higher education, which would both allow them to understand principles such as evolution better and be likely to have them end up in largely liberal and atheist company and be exposed to those memes.


----------



## Zuu (Feb 28, 2010)

Cirrus said:


> Also, wouldn't one think that agnosticism would be linked to higher IQ as well...? Especially since many atheists actually are agnostics, whyyyy does everyone always forget the agnostics. ;_;


Probably because agnosticism isn't quite as "unconventional" or bold as adopting atheism, even though agnosticism is probably the most logical stance. I'm an agnostic, but I still identify as an atheist because it makes it clear that people can't shove their Jesus shit on me.


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Feb 28, 2010)

you know what else people forget all the time?

apatheism.

my spellchecker doesn't even think it's an actual word.


----------



## Zuu (Feb 28, 2010)

the problem I see with apatheism is that, if the theists have their way, the question of a god/gods WILL be relevant for you so meh.


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Feb 28, 2010)

eh, I'd imagine a reaction more along the lines of "I don't care, stfu."


----------



## #1 bro (Mar 1, 2010)

it's kind of silly to not care if x religion is right or not - i mean, supposedly your choice of religion dictates whether you spend the rest of eternity suffering or in bliss so... you should probably care about that


----------



## Crazy Linoone (Mar 1, 2010)

ShiningGlass said:


> > Didn't you ever think that there was a reason that, in US state IQ surveys, states like Massachusetts, California, and Oregon always do really well, while states like Louisiana, Georgia, and Alabama always do really badly? (I'm not bad-mouthing all people from those states - I'm just making a point.)
> 
> 
> I would imagine that would be the fault of the poor education standards in those states.


Sadly, California is not known for its great education standards. It's even worse than (of all things) _Louisiana_. In fact, California is so bad that people have to put more writing/reading sections as well as an essay in the SAT just because too many Californians are too good at figuring out the answer to questions such as "if newt is to lampshades, then cheese is to _____" but fail in college because they can't write. 

Yeah.


----------



## opaltiger (Mar 1, 2010)

Seconding what Butterfree said. Evolutionary psychology has a ridiculously unfair reputation. Additionally I think most of the absurd "studies" in evolutionary psychology are the work of only one or two people.

Also!


----------



## FluffyGryphon (Mar 1, 2010)

Woo. Yet another study that gives a certain group of people the chance to inflate their mental testicles and toss them around. Liberals and conservatives are two sides to one particular brand of moron. Athiests that broadcast as such are of a similar brand of moron, as well. Why are we feeding theses people? About twelve different news sites are turning this into 'top news'... I have to admit, however, the 'male sexual exclusivity' research just makes me giggle.

Mind you, you also get the occasional science-minded person that sees this study for what it is and just studies it with unopinionated fascination.


----------



## Effigy of the Forgotten (Mar 1, 2010)

FluffyGryphon said:


> Woo. Yet another study that gives a certain group of people the chance to inflate their mental testicles and toss them around. Liberals and conservatives are two sides to one particular brand of moron. Athiests that broadcast as such are of a similar brand of moron, as well.


Not really sure what you're trying to say here - that people who label themselves are morons? That people who are open about their beliefs and values are morons? People are morons generally?


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Mar 1, 2010)

Effigy of the Forgotten said:


> Not really sure what you're trying to say here - that people who label themselves are morons? That people who are open about their beliefs and values are morons? People are morons generally?


I say yes to all of the above.

and you know what? it's probably a good thing, too.


----------



## Jetx (Mar 1, 2010)

If everyone is a moron, then no-one is.


----------



## Harlequin (Mar 2, 2010)

Cirrus said:


> Also, wouldn't one think that agnosticism would be linked to higher IQ as well...? Especially since many atheists actually are agnostics, whyyyy does everyone always forget the agnostics. ;_;


Agnostics are atheists. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in God [or supernatural deities]; that fairly accurately describes agnostics, too, who also don't believe in God. They might think "I don't knowwwww" or "we can't know", but it is unarguably a lack of belief in a supreme creator being.

[That, and I highly doubt anything is a complete atheist who refuses to even consider for one moment the idea of a supernatural deity. It's extremely unlikely and a ridiculous proposition, of course, but if someone presented me with some cool evidence I might have to change my mind.]


----------



## FluffyGryphon (Mar 2, 2010)

Effigy of the Forgotten said:


> Not really sure what you're trying to say here - that people who label themselves are morons? That people who are open about their beliefs and values are morons? People are morons generally?





sreservoir said:


> I say yes to all of the above.
> 
> and you know what? it's probably a good thing, too.


It is a good thing. 

I'm not speaking labels, no. I was making a particularly scathing comment toward the study while generalizing at the same time. The study did it too, afterall. The term 'liberal' and 'conservative' in the actual study had absolutely nothing to do with the political leanings of liberals and conservatives. 

Now, I know not all liberals and conservatives are morons (politically speaking), but a vast majority are. And I just don't like most atheists because in my experiences, they don't just say they are atheists, they have to mention it at every possible opportunity.

Oh by the way, you silly people left this out:


> Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.


Hmm. You know what that means...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm



Jetx said:


> If everyone is a moron, then no-one is.


I wasn't really implying that, since you know, Athiests, liberals, and conservatives hardly make up everyone. Interesting proposition, though. I like it.


Sometimes I just like watching the world burn. :>


----------



## Butterfree (Mar 2, 2010)

Isn't 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' generally set up as a dichotomy - you're pretty much supposed to be one or the other? Maybe you could argue for some extreme middle ground in between, but to say it's moronic to have any position but the middle ground is, um, kind of moronic in itself.

Also, it's inevitable that most atheists will seem to be the people who tell you about it all the time, because you won't actually know that the rest are atheists too.


----------



## Autumn (Mar 2, 2010)

Butterfree said:


> Isn't 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' generally set up as a dichotomy - you're pretty much supposed to be one or the other? Maybe you could argue for some extreme middle ground in between, but to say it's moronic to have any position but the middle ground is, um, kind of moronic in itself.


According to my civics teacher, the majority of American citizens are closer to the middle ground.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Mar 2, 2010)

> According to my civics teacher, the majority of American citizens are closer to the middle ground.


Is that American middle ground or normal middle ground?
Because American middle ground is probably centre-right at best considering the positions Democrats and Republicans have.


----------



## FluffyGryphon (Mar 2, 2010)

Butterfree said:


> Isn't 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' generally set up as a dichotomy - you're pretty much supposed to be one or the other? Maybe you could argue for some extreme middle ground in between, but to say it's moronic to have any position but the middle ground is, um, kind of moronic in itself.
> 
> Also, it's inevitable that most atheists will seem to be the people who tell you about it all the time, because you won't actually know that the rest are atheists too.


I'd consider myself an eco-socialist if you wanna get into ideologies.

And they don't need to tell me all the time. But yeah, I guess it's kind of a double-edged blade. But as a whole, I tend to equate it with loud Christians that have to mention as much all the time. My favorite Christian is one I don't know is a Christian. ^^


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Mar 2, 2010)

FluffyGryphon said:


> The term 'liberal' and 'conservative' in the actual study had absolutely nothing to do with the political leanings of liberals and conservatives.


They explicitly state with in the article that they're not using "liberal" and "conservative" as political terms. Since they're not exclusively political terms.


----------



## Autumn (Mar 2, 2010)

Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


> Is that American middle ground or normal middle ground?
> Because American middle ground is probably centre-right at best considering the positions Democrats and Republicans have.


Probably American middle ground actually.


----------



## Minish (Mar 2, 2010)

Harlequin said:


> Agnostics are atheists. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in God [or supernatural deities]; that fairly accurately describes agnostics, too, who also don't believe in God. They might think "I don't knowwwww" or "we can't know", but it is unarguably a lack of belief in a supreme creator being.
> 
> [That, and I highly doubt anything is a complete atheist who refuses to even consider for one moment the idea of a supernatural deity. It's extremely unlikely and a ridiculous proposition, of course, but if someone presented me with some cool evidence I might have to change my mind.]


Actually, atheism is defined as _disbelief_ in God/deities. Which is very different from a lack of belief whatsoever -- that's an agnostic. Or at least, one stance. You can't say an agnostic is an atheist, because "there are absolutely no deities" and "we can't possibly have knowledge of deities' existence or lack thereof" just don't mix.


----------



## opaltiger (Mar 2, 2010)

Cirrus said:


> Actually, atheism is defined as _disbelief_ in God/deities. Which is very different from a lack of belief whatsoever -- that's an agnostic. Or at least, one stance. You can't say an agnostic is an atheist, because "there are absolutely no deities" and "we can't possibly have knowledge of deities' existence or lack thereof" just don't mix.


No. No no no. Atheism is lack of belief. Very very few people actively disbelieve in god; that would be silly. Also, you first say an agnostic has a lack of belief in god (what?), then say agnosticism is the opinion that the existence of god is unknowable?

Here is an article I wrote for a school newspaper recently, titled On Atheism and Agnosticism; it's not that short, but this confusion annoys me so much I will post it anyway:



> In a recent debate, Richard Dawkins was asked, and I paraphrase, the following question: agnosticism is defined as being unsure of the existence of god, and you say god almost certainly doesn’t exist, so aren’t you an agnostic, not an atheist? This question reveals rather annoying misconceptions about a number of things, which I shall attempt to address here, partly because they are frustratingly widespread and mostly because it is as good a place as any.
> 
> The main idea here is that atheism is the position that god definitely doesn’t exist and that anything else is agnosticism. I want to start by looking at the definitions of agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is generally used to mean one of two things: first, the position that humans cannot answer the question of god’s existence; and in this sense agnosticism is entirely separate from atheism or theism. The second perspective is that agnosticism is an intermediate point between theism and atheism, or rather, the position of being unsure of god’s existence. Normally, I would argue that this definition is redundant and incorrect and that we should use the first, but let us assume, for the sake of argument, the second.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minish (Mar 2, 2010)

opaltiger said:


> No. No no no. Atheism is lack of belief. Very very few people actively disbelieve in god; that would be silly. Also, you first say an agnostic has a lack of belief in god (what?), then say agnosticism is the opinion that the existence of god is unknowable?


Well... looking at Wikipedia's definition:



> Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, with or without an assertion that deities do not exist.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.


I guess if you're following that 'broader definition', then sure, it's lack of belief, but I wouldn't go as far to say that an agnostic is an atheist.

And I know very, very few people actively disbelieve in a god, and that that would be silly -- that's why I think most people identifying as atheist are actually agnostics. But then, that's going by what I've always believe an atheist is, so yeah.


----------



## Harlequin (Mar 2, 2010)

Cirrus said:


> Actually, atheism is defined as _disbelief_ in God/deities. Which is very different from a lack of belief whatsoever -- that's an agnostic. Or at least, one stance. You can't say an agnostic is an atheist, because "there are absolutely no deities" and "we can't possibly have knowledge of deities' existence or lack thereof" just don't mix.


I had something to say in reply but then opal said it first so I'm just posting this to show that yes, I read your response and yes, I did have something to say in reply.

But opal is like a ninja, so.


----------



## Harlequin (Mar 2, 2010)

Cirrus said:


> And I know very, very few people actively disbelieve in a god, and that that would be silly -- that's why I think most people identifying as atheist are actually agnostics. But then, that's going by what I've always believe an atheist is, so yeah.


No. Atheists are atheist. It is a lack of belief in God, not being unsure of whether or not God exists. It's like how I "don't believe" in magic or fairies or astrology. If presented with evidence I will change my mind, but until that evidence arrives I do not believe in them. 

Atheism is, like opal said, defined negatively. It isn't the position of _having something_ but one of _not having something_.


----------



## Minish (Mar 2, 2010)

Harlequin said:


> No. Atheists are atheist. It is a lack of belief in God, not being unsure of whether or not God exists. It's like how I "don't believe" in magic or fairies or astrology. If presented with evidence I will change my mind, but until that evidence arrives I do not believe in them.
> 
> Atheism is, like opal said, defined negatively. It isn't the position of _having something_ but one of _not having something_.


Reading up quickly on atheism, I've discovered there's 'strong atheism' as an explicit disbelief and 'weak atheism', which incorporates agnosticism as a lack of belief. Which is interesting. I actually thought they were different altogether, I've never really looked much into belief classification.

So yeah, thanks. Annoying to know I've always thought atheism was necessarily a strict disbelief.


----------



## opaltiger (Mar 2, 2010)

> And I know very, very few people actively disbelieve in a god, and that that would be silly -- that's why I think most people identifying as atheist are actually agnostics. But then, that's going by what I've always believe an atheist is, so yeah.


I don't mean to be condescending, but doesn't it make more sense to use the definition that self-identifying atheists use, rather than your own?

Also agnosticism does not mean being unsure of god's existence. :( well maybe it does sometimes but then it is really a redundant meaning.

Incidentally, "commonly defined" are the key words in that definition. Sure, atheists will usually say "I don't believe in god", but only because it's shorter than "I have a lack of belief in god" or "I don't believe in god, but there is a small chance he exists".

Did you read my big block of text? I know it's long, but really, this is exactly the kind of situation I wrote it for.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Mar 2, 2010)

Ugh, the notion of "strong" and "weak" atheism makes my blood simmer on heat for 2-3 minutes. There is no strong/weak atheism, there is _atheism_.


----------



## Minish (Mar 2, 2010)

opaltiger said:


> I don't mean to be condescending, but doesn't it make more sense to use the definition that self-identifying atheists use, rather than your own?
> 
> Also agnosticism does not mean being unsure of god's existence. :(
> 
> ...


It's not just a definition I plucked out of thin air. It's what I've come to think atheism is, as a result of what self-identifying atheists have told me.

I thought agnosticism was the belief that knowledge of deities is unknowable? :/ I pretty much get my definitions from reputable word-of-mouth of Wikipedia, so... it makes sense if I'm wrong about all this, but it does seem that self-identfying atheists don't exactly have as universal a definition as it would seem.

And yeah, I did read it, and it was interesting. But it's only something I can agree with if I share the same view/definition of atheism and agnosticism, so yeah.



Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> Ugh, the notion of "strong" and "weak" atheism makes my blood simmer on heat for 2-3 minutes. There is no strong/weak atheism, there is _atheism_.


But _why_? If agnosticism is a type of atheism, surely it makes sense to differentiate between the two views? If all atheism is strong atheism, then I'm not an atheist, but opaltiger and Harlequin say agnosticism is atheism.


----------



## opaltiger (Mar 2, 2010)

> I thought agnosticism was the belief that knowledge of deities is unknowable? :/ I pretty much get my definitions from reputable word-of-mouth of Wikipedia, so... it makes sense if I'm wrong about all this, but it does seem that self-identfying atheists don't exactly have as universal a definition as it would seem.


It is, yes. I was under the impression you were using a different meaning. As such agnosticism is not atheism, of course - though atheists can be agnostics, and theists can be agnostics too.

If you take agnosticism to mean being unsure about god's existence, then agnosticism is atheism.

The problem is that people give undue weight to the possibility of god's existence. If it were any other absurd belief - unicorns! fairies! teapots! - no one would care if I said "this doesn't exist", even if strictly speaking I should be saying "this almost certainly doesn't exist". But as soon as you start talking about god things get more complicated.

Like I said, very few people are actually strong atheists - but once you get right down to it, it just gets tiresome if you have to always stipulate that yes, there is that small chance god exists. Which is why most atheists will probably say "I don't believe in god". (as Dawkins put it, he is a de facto atheist)


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Mar 2, 2010)

Cirrus said:


> But _why_? If agnosticism is a type of atheism, surely it makes sense to differentiate between the two views? If all atheism is strong atheism, then I'm not an atheist, but opaltiger and Harlequin say agnosticism is atheism.


Belief that the answer to the question of the existence of deities is unknowable = agnostic
Lack of belief in a deity or deities = atheism
Active disbelief in a deity or deities = antitheism

And before anyone Wikipedias anything, the word "antitheism" carries multiple definitions, depending on context. In this context, "active disbelief in a deity or deities" is the appropriate definition.


----------



## opaltiger (Mar 2, 2010)

Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> Belief that the answer to the question of the existence of deities is unknowable = agnostic
> Lack of belief in a deity or deities = atheism
> Active disbelief in a deity or deities = antitheism
> 
> And before anyone Wikipedias anything, the word "antitheism" carries multiple definitions, depending on context. In this context, "active disbelief in a deity or deities" is the appropriate definition.


I would very much disagree with you, but either way the point is irrelevant. You're just renaming things. Antitheism by your definition is still atheism, merely a subset of it, much like strong atheism is a subset of atheism.


----------



## #1 bro (Mar 2, 2010)

yeah the majority of americans are in the middle and a depressing amount of people seem to believe in that one fallacy (fallacy of compromise or something) where people believe that the answer always lies in the middle of two extremes.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Mar 2, 2010)

opaltiger said:


> I would very much disagree with you, but either way the point is irrelevant. You're just renaming things. Antitheism by your definition is still atheism, merely a subset of it, much like strong atheism is a subset of atheism.


I don't think of antitheism as a subset of atheism because while neither believes in a deity or deities of any kind, one says that they definitely don't exist, whereas one says that there's a possibility that they do, which are mutually exclusive claims.

EDIT: Apparently, opaltiger hasn't read this thread _o_O_


----------



## opaltiger (Mar 2, 2010)

Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> I don't think of antitheism as a subset of atheism because while neither believes in a deity or deities of any kind, one says that they definitely don't exist, whereas one says that there's a possibility that they do, which are mutually exclusive claims.
> 
> EDIT: Apparently, opaltiger hasn't read this thread _o_O_


That's not how you defined them, though. You said atheism was lack of belief. If you disbelieve in god, you by definition lack a belief in god.

A better way of putting it would be to say "probability" instead of "possibility"; in this case, they are not mutually exclusive, because that probability can be 0.

(I am always invisible)


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Mar 2, 2010)

opaltiger said:


> That's not how you defined them, though. You said atheism was lack of belief. If you disbelieve in god, you by definition lack a belief in god.
> 
> A better way of putting it would be to say "probability" instead of "possibility"; in this case, they are not mutually exclusive, because that probability can be 0.
> 
> (I am always invisible)


Fair enough, I get your point.

Schopenhauer would be ashamed by my surrender.


----------



## Autumn (Mar 3, 2010)

Last year I had a not-really-friend of mine who wants to be a missionary attempt to convert me to Christianity.

Her opening argument was an attempt to prove to me that God existed by telling me that I haven't yet seen God because he isn't everywhere at once.

It was all downhill from there.


----------



## Butterfree (Mar 3, 2010)

It really doesn't matter what's atheism and what's agnosticism and what's what. What matters is that when a person says, "I'm an atheist," you should be aware that they probably mean, "I don't believe in God but acknowledge the remote possibility he (or any of the various other gods mankind has thought up) could theoretically exist." As long as the meaning is adequately communicated, it doesn't matter what words are used.

Although I have to disagree that agnosticism can't be a meaningful term as an "unsure" sort of thing; I wouldn't call a person an atheist unless they're comfortable assuming in their daily lives that God probably doesn't exist, while the various people who insist on sitting on the fence entirely and treating it as if there's an equal chance of either would not do so and therefore I wouldn't call them atheists. :/


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Mar 3, 2010)

Leafpool said:


> Last year I had a not-really-friend of mine who wants to be a missionary attempt to convert me to Christianity.
> 
> Her opening argument was an attempt to prove to me that God existed by telling me that I haven't yet seen God because he isn't everywhere at once.
> 
> It was all downhill from there.


I lol'd.


----------



## H-land (Mar 3, 2010)

Zeta Reticuli said:


> yeah the majority of americans are in the middle and a depressing amount of people seem to believe in that one fallacy (fallacy of compromise or something) where people believe that the answer always lies in the middle of two extremes.


I'm not sure what you're saying at all, here, Zeta. What are you talking about? It _is_ often said that the truth tends to lie between two extremes, but I wouldn't so much move to discredit this as a fallacy as an overgeneralization. Bell curves _are_, in fact, a common occurrence in statistics, and it can be a useful thing to remember that.
Really, though what are you trying to say? Because all I see are words, and all I get is a sense of discontent.


----------



## #1 bro (Mar 3, 2010)

nah it's a fallacy, but i forget the name. i'll go look it up later and if i find a nice link. i'll edit this post. 

anyway what i'm saying is that i hear _all the time_ stuff like "people are too polarized, either you're a democrat or a republican, conservative or liberal, while really, people just need to compromise and find the truth in the middle ground and everything will be great". 

my response to that would be to tell that person to think back to 150 years ago, where the radical left-wing view on the issue of slavery in America would be something like "not only should slavery be illegal, but African-Americans should be granted full rights as citizens and be allowed to marry white people". the radical right-wing view would be to keep slavery around or something (i'm not really a historian). now looking back we can say that the "left-wing" view was absolutely, 100% correct and that they definitely should not have compromised with the other side.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Mar 4, 2010)

The fallacy is assuming that the middle ground between two extremes is the most favourable option.

EDIT: 





			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that any given compromise between two positions must be correct.


----------



## Drowzee64 (Mar 6, 2010)

Hilariously, I'm a gay liberal atheist and I'm fucking stupid. My grades currently suck.


----------



## Jetx (Mar 6, 2010)

Low grades doesn't necessarily mean low intelligence.


----------



## EvilCrazyMonkey (Mar 6, 2010)

I always viewed agnosticism and atheism and two entirely separate things where you could be one, both, or neither. I always thought of agnosticism as saying that we have no way of knowing if god exists and atheism as the lack of belief in a god. So strong atheists (as you've been talking about) would be only atheists, and weak atheists would be both agnostic and atheist. I'm struggling to come up with an example of someone that's purely agnostic my this system. Maybe when you believe there's a better possibility of a god (like opal's second scale in her essay), you start to fade into agnosticism? I'm really not sure.

Also, what would you be called if you believed in some higher power but didn't know what it was? I've had a few friends follow that and identify as agnostic, but I don't think that's really correct.


----------

